lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5b7def39-8c23-d30f-e2d3-bc38beee8919@roeck-us.net> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2020 21:03:34 -0800 From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> To: Kathiravan T <kathirav@...eaurora.org>, Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>, agross@...nel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, wim@...ux-watchdog.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: Luka Perkov <luka.perkov@...tura.hr> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] watchdog: qcom_wdt: set WDOG_HW_RUNNING bit when appropriate On 11/1/20 7:58 PM, Kathiravan T wrote: > > On 10/31/2020 7:38 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On 10/31/20 5:11 AM, Robert Marko wrote: >>> If the watchdog hardware is enabled/running during boot, e.g. >>> due to a boot loader configuring it, we must tell the >>> watchdog framework about this fact so that it can ping the >>> watchdog until userspace opens the device and takes over >>> control. >>> >>> Do so using the WDOG_HW_RUNNING flag that exists for exactly >>> that use-case. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr> >> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> > > Thanks for addressing the comments and now the patch looks good to me. One more suggestion, can we make the initcall level of the driver to subsys_initcall_sync so that the driver gets registered immediately after the watchdog_core is registered and watchdog_core starts pinging the WDT? > That would mean to replace module_platform_driver(), which would be a whole different discussion, is not widely needed, and would potentially interfere with the subsys_initcall_sync() in the watchdog core. This will require specific evidence that a problem is seen in the field, and that it is truly needed. Plus, it would have to be a different patch (which you could submit yourself, with evidence). Let's stick with one logical change per patch, please. Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists